Yes, I hear you, all the $0.29 sales add up. Full disclosure: all those $0.29's (and an occasional $2 for an extended license) have, so far in 2018, earned me less than $300. Pre-tax.

It's my own fault and I am not complaining... much. While big-scale business marketers are paying lip-service to "authenticity" in images, what they still buy, more than anything else, is the ubiquitous posed, multi-racial-and-mixed-gender-group-with-toothpaste-ad-teeth-and-at-least-one-person-wearing-designer-glasses group shot of people, and I don't do those. I don't do posed people, I'm not into "lifestyle" family images-for-hire, and I just won't sell photos of children through micro-stock sites. So I'm not really expecting to make the top-stock-seller list anytime soon. Much as I would like to earn a fair price from the photos that I do sell there, my focus (sic) is on other types of photography.

The picture at the top of this post is one of my best-sellers, as it appears today on Adobe/Fotolia. I shot it in a fit of pique one day, after studying micro-stock sites, seeing all the (what I felt were) contrived images, and trying to work out what sells. I took a dollar-store jar of sea-glass and cockle-shells, dumped them on a table, and took the shot, indoors, no studio lighting, nothing. And yeah... it sold then and it still sells. Usually for $0.29 a pop.

But seriously... most of my photos will never end up on micro-stock sites. None of my photography of performers, for example--they are for editorial use only (talk to me directly about those). But I am very happy to have discovered a new stock photography site, PicFair.com, which strives to be fair to photographers. If you buy photos for a blog, or for your company, please consider photos found there, because... they are fair to the photographers. Think of it like Fair Trade coffee. I'm waiting to see if it works.

1 comment:

If you are a photographer struggling to decide how to license photos--editorial, or commercial--think about it like this. Is there a recognisable person in the image? If so, do you have a release signed by that person, or their parent/guardian, allowing you to sell it for commercial use? If no, then it must be Editorial only--and only if you feel personally comfortable doing so. If not, don't sell it at all.

Does the image contain no recognisable people, but include other things such as product trademarks? Again, it must be Editorial-only, unless you have a photo release signed by that company, allowing Commercial use. For example: any photo of Times Square in New York is likely to be for Editorial use only, due to all the advertising. Another example: if you take a photo of a Coke can and sell it for Commercial and Advertising use, it's theoretically available for a competitor like Pepsi to use. Do you really want to get into that discussion? I wouldn't!

#alisontoonphotographer on IG

About Me

HOW TOON'S TUNES WORKS

All photos are on the Toon's Tunes gallery server at http://alisontoon.com. If any older post is missing photos, go to the performers' gallery in the Music section of http://alisontoon.com - you'll find them there. Check info about licensing editorial images on the About page. Some images are restricted for use in Toon's Tunes/Cameras And Cargos galleries only.

Read the stories, comment if you like: if you want to contribute to costs, feel free to commission a photo session or to purchase a high-res image to publish in your magazine or newspaper from http://alisontoon.com... or if you are feeling really, really kind, use the donate button below to contribute to the costs of maintaining this site!